< 5 May	7 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was first PRODED in 2015 but however was removed.

Subject has partnership with a few notable companies but lacks WP:SIGCOV and i believe it doesn't really satisfy WP:NOTABILITY as they're just passing mentions and nothing Indepth. On creation there was also alot of promotion and still currently serves to promote take for example the list of completed projects of which none is notable. Lapablo (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found, does not meet NCORP. Zerach (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Germcrow (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, and also suspect it fails WP:NOTPROMOTION given it was created by a WP:SPA and a lot of very promotional sounding content was added by that account and another SPA. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per the above. A local business below the threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 23:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ngome (bread)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two sentence article tagged as unsourced since 2009. Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no reliable sources, only some non-free images and mentions on a website or two. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A good academic or public library might have a book or two about cooking in Mali or baking in Africa that could serve as a reference. This BBC article doesn't mention ngome, but proves there is some coverage of Mali's bakeries in a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of refs. I’ve added four. Mccapra (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I don't know why people waited until now to add sources.Tamsier (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Requires more content and good sources.Germcrow (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. AfD is not cleanup. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, a notable bread, article now reflects this (although editors need to remember WP:CONTN) with sources added by Mccapra (thankyou:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kachilaa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unsourced, one-sentence article tagged since 2009. Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no reliable sources with only a few passing mentions in blogs. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth, reliable sources found. Zerach (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found and added refs. Mccapra (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep There is an article on Mashed potato. So, why not a minced beef dish? The kind of content that one has, this one can/will have too.The only difference is the relative privilege of first and third world. Having said that, I don't think any sources will take this article past the WP:GNG at this time. So, a soft keep with an eye to the future, but strictly in wikipedia policy terms, it doesn't meet the notability guidelines.

- for the Mashed potato argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFF in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - Epinoia (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at the very least this could be a redirect, here are two perfectly reasonable targets: Newa cuisine, or List of Nepalese dishes, but that doesn't matter because with the sources added by Mccapra it is a keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Newa cuisine. It is cited, but still a single line, better situated in a larger article. bd2412 T 23:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of top-ten dance singles of 1976[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This to me appears to be an unnecessary dive into list mania. Is it really necessary to add another sorting criterion to the large selection of lists clustering around Billboard charts ? - in fact, there would have to be 79 (to date) of them... and the sub-chart article at Dance Club Songs is already piling it on quite thickly with the special interest lists.

I can't say I'm much conversant with the conventions regarding charting articles, so feel free to tell me this is A-Okay, but it does feel somewhat egregious. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: even if this is kept, the title would need to be changed... it doesn't say that it's talking about the US rather than any other country, and it should include the full chart name in the title. Richard3120 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of articles copying the data of all of the music charts gets absurd and this is WP:NOTSTATS territory, with everything coming from the single primary source. There's already an article for the List of number-one dance singles of 1976 (U.S.) this could be redirected to. These number-one articles could certainly be merged to be per decade rather than per year as some have but I digress... Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom’s claim of being excessive, and Reywas’s claim of redundancy. Sergecross73 msg me 22:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This has historical value. It can be sourced. Germcrow (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of historical value would be lost in deletion. The entire thing is sourced to Billboard. This is just a replication of what is readily available on their website (And is mostly covered elsewhere on Wikipedia too.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These secondary charts are not regularly covered in non-primary sources so as the nom suggests once you delve into them beyond the lists of number ones (which already exist) it's just trivia. This is also bordering WP:OR as the only way to put these together is to go through the primary source week by week to confirm top ten debut, weeks in the top ten, etc. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed WP:LISTN. Need to demonstrate that such list is given in independent reliable sources, which it failed to do so. Hzh (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Wright[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, there are many inaccurate statements in this article. This person was not a knight, not a gentleman and did not have a coat of arms nor had a seat on the "King's council". Also, he was born before the Reformation so having a priest as a father is also probably an error. Once we remove those facts, in his will, he is clearly a yeoman and gave his sons a mere £6, 13, 4. While the Wright Family did do many notable things, I do not think he meets the notability guidelines for wikipedia. The sources are unreliable as I have mentioned, and they are not independent. If there was an article regarding the manor he perhaps would merit a mention but I have always suspected he was a composite person created to connect a yeoman family whose descendants emigrated to the United States to minor gentry family in Essex. The reason I re-proposed this article for deletion is I feel there are insufficient reliable sources for notability What we do have are just a couple of sentences from deeds and possibly his will but other than that he doesn't seem like a particularly important person.

The VCH History Of Essex article on the Parish of South Weald mentions they did own a modest amount of freehold property but were not the manor owners. There was a John Wright of South Weald, yeoman, who purchased the manor of Kelvedon Hatch for £493 in 1538 according to the VCH article on Kelvedon Hatch This is could be a different person - he died, presumably at Kelvedon on 5 Oct 1551 but we do not know who is parents were, see Burke's Landed Gentry p. 1640. Kirk (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not familiar with the subject, but most of the material that might establish notability is uncited, while that which is cited is to a self-published family history (Wright esq), a self-published web page (Your Heritage), a dated source that has 'not aged well' (Cutter, not considered reliable even in the genealogical community, let alone among historians), or is unrelated to the subject (Rice). That leaves us with a passing mention in a Wright family history that this man is an ancestors of the brothers, but WP:INHERITED. I am not seeing a legitimate, documented, reliable claim to notability. Agricolae (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I neglected to mention WP:INHERITED as one of the reasons (I'm a little rusty sorry!). Also, I neglected to review the previous deletion request - one of the reasons mentioned was the seat on the 'King's Council' - he was not a courtier as I mentioned. The previous reviewers thought he did meet the WP:GNG - as I mentioned, I'm arguing that while there are sources, that is a good summary of why they are somewhat inadequate to estabilsh notablily. I put a few the reliable ones above and I don't feel those have significant coverage. Thanks for your comments. Kirk (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add for the sake of full disclosure that the current state of the page results, at least in part, from the removal of material some time back by yours truly. I stand by those deletions, but one could argue they are to blame for the current sorry state of the page. The pre-deletion version can be seen here [1]. The removed material included references to self-published low-quality web pages and an 'in literature' section that was really just a mention of supposed sources (though of the four listed, one doesn't name the family on the cited page, one lacks a page number and I am not going to search the whole book to see if I can find the info, one is to a 33-volume set with no volume number given, and one is to a self-published genealogical pseudo-history of the family that is just regurgitating various dubious traditions (for example, material on one page is sourced "from the English Records", and elsewhere it claims the subject of this article was an MP - no such member existed per History of Parliament). Agricolae (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I find a good deal of the content of this article incredible. The list of children is probably not capable of proof, as English parish registers only began in the late 1530s. The "Kings Council" is usually called the Privy Council and at this period was quite small, consisting only of the king's immediate advisers; if he had been one, I would have expected a Dictionary of National Biography entry. It is possible that the genealogist has mistaken King's Council for King's Counsel, making the subject a senior barrister, but that is speculation. However this is not hereditary. I would not expect a knighthood to be granted to a yeoman. However more importantly, the subject appears completely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while the present page perhaps makes a hash of things (e.g. possibly conflating the son with the same name - [2][3] - with the father), Burke 1838 ([4]) does describe him as esq of Kelvedon House. Following the Wright's flight - it seems John Wright has written himself into over 50 genelogical books (starting back in 1912 or so) - all of which provide a few paragraphs - of often dubious quality. It does seems there is a small bit of reliable coverage (prior links + a few more) in relation to Catholicism in England. All this being said - this probably fails notability (lack of in depth coverage in reliable sources), but I am possibly missing the good sources with all the genealogical crud (as being related to the Wrights is "hot" - obviously each such book ties them all the way back to 1488). Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Burke's "John Wright, esq." is the great-grandson of our man, living in the mid-17th century. Likewise, based on the style at the time, the "John Wright of Kelvedon, gent." named in the second recusancy citation you give for having his son and heir John and his daughter Anne 'seduced' in 1605 would be the then-living holder of the property, and hence our subjects son, or even grandson. For that matter, as I look at what the cited Cutter source says and compare it with the pedigree of the Kelvedon Wrights from the 1634 Visitation of Essex, it becomes pretty clear to me that someone simply invented the connection between the Wright immigrant and the English gentry family (common practice in the late 19th- and early 20th-century genealogies) and this was simply regurgitated in subsequent Wright brothers biographies rather than being independently confirmed (common practice to this day - not that the notability of this person hangs on whether or not the Wright brothers descend from him.) The Visitation, by the way, says of our subject, in full, "John Wright, of Kelvedon in com. Essex", which is a bit slim to serve as the basis for notability. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY, WP:INVALIDBIO and a failure to meet WP:ANYBIO. Seems like a minor figure who's only claim to notability is a distant ancestor. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia A. Young[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass NPROF or NAUTHOR. Natureium (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article leaves much to be desired, but her book Soul Power is cited around 300 times according to Google Scholar, which is a high number of citations in its field. --Tataral (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've made some cleanups to the article including updating her affiliation. I found five reviews of her one book; the number of reviews is ok but one book only is a little light with respect to WP:AUTHOR and a little problematic with respect to WP:BIO1E. And no matter how well cited it is, one publication is probably not enough for WP:PROF#C1. And her rank and administrative position are not enough. So I think the best case is through WP:AUTHOR, but it's a weak one. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep For a solid pass of WP:AUTHOR, I like to see multiple reviews of multiple books — but at worst, we should be talking about moving this article to Soul Power: Culture, Radicalism and the Making of a U.S. Third World Left, since that book definitely meets WP:NBOOK. XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book is notable, BLP1E and all that. ∯WBG^converse 09:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AUTHOR clearly includes those who have written one book with multiple reviews in reputable sources. There is an argument for moving to an article on the book, but with academics a book typically refers to wider research interests and more general ideas that could be better covered in an article on the person. Article desperately needs improvement, not deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. As an associate professor and head of department at Penn State she is a well established academic. She has more publications than just this one book, but the book is clearly her most important work. Regardless, I think an article on just the book would be unnecessarily narrow in scope, and that an article on her is better and could include coverage of the book. We should keep in mind that in the humanities citation counts aren't very important. Her work also includes exhibitions and other non-traditional forms of publishing. She was one of the five authors of Witness: Art and Civil Rights in the Sixties which is held by about 400 libraries (roughly the same number of libraries that hold her book Soul Power)[5] --Tataral (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep book review meet WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tataral's reasoning above. nonmodernist (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Transnational Reproduction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Deomampo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass NAUTHOR. Does not pass NRPOF. She's an assistant professor, and the awards listed are minor. None of the sources are independent, reliable, and have significant coverage. Natureium (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An assistant professor who is cited 194 times according to Google Schoolar. She doesn't pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The junior position is not promising: assistant professors are not barred from being notable, but often aren't. Her Google Scholar profile doesn't list enough highly cited publications to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. I didn't find much in the way of independent reliably published sources about her. So what's left is her one book, Transnational Reproduction. But this book has at least seven published reviews. So despite being only one book I think there is a weak case for WP:AUTHOR, similar to another recent case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia A. Young. But because there is nothing more towards notability than that one book, WP:BIO1E comes into play and it may be preferable to redirect this to an article about the book instead of about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or convert to an article about the book. Much like the other recent case mentioned above, the wiki-notability case for the book is much more clear-cut (or, to say it another way, easier to argue by the letter of the guidelines). But we might as well save the edit history, rather than starting from scratch. XOR'easter (talk)
Delete - The notability is of the book, not of the author. Fails NAUTHOR as well as NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 09:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ fails WP:PROF. Note that page was created by an SPA, and that it reads like PROMO for an early career academic. Book is notable and a willing editor can certainly create a page about the book Transnational Reproduction: Race, Kinship, and Commercial Surrogacy in India, using sources now in this page. But it is WP:TOOSOON for a page on Deomampo.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don’t see the notability here. Perhaps in due time. Trillfendi (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transnational Reproduction, as the book is notable under WP:NBOOK#1 but the author doesn't yet meet notability guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging David Eppstein, XOR'easter, Winged Blades of Godric, and E.M.Gregory, now that book article has been created. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be fine with a redirect to Transnational Reproduction. I don't think we need to delete before redirecting, since nothing in the page history is intrinsically objectionable, but it's probably not a big deal either way. XOR'easter (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect. As I wrote above, "there is nothing more towards notability than that one book". The rest of the article is just an easily-reconstructed recap of her education, and a listing of grants and talks that we routinely omit from these articles. So I don't think much of value will be lost by a redirect. And the focus on content rather than promotional activity has already made the book article better than the biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transnational Reproduction, as per my comment above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transnational Reproduction per Bakazaka. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian J. Mistler[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass GNG or NPROF or NAUTHOR or N anything else. Natureium (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-article (half a sentence) on an associate dean of students at a small college, Ringling College of Art and Design, with 312 citations according to Google Scholar. --Tataral (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says so little about him as to be a plausible case for A7 speedy deletion. There's more at his Google Scholar profile but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far from WP:PROF#C1, no other case for significance evident. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:01, 07 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wimbledon, London#Schools. Limited merge, per John from Idegon -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ursuline Preparatory School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable primary school. Cannot see a suitable merge target. Tacyarg (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Wimbledon, London#Schools. And by merge, I mean add the name of the school to the list. Tacyarg, if you'd want to withdraw this and just go ahead and BOLDly do that, I can't see why that would be a problem. John from Idegon (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable school - does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NGO or WP:NSCHOOL - there is no "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Epinoia, have you ever heard of WP:ATD? John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Wimbledon, London#Schools.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as an early keep per WP:SNOW. There is very clear consensus that this article should be kept. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bryan (scientist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass NPROF or NAUTHOR. Most of the results on google are self-promotional links. Natureium (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe anything has changed here from the findings of fact during the past two nominations - this guy has been cited a lot [6], to the extent that he passes notability requirements on WP:PROF#C1 alone. Article clearly needs some love, but you can't argue with 4 articles with >500 cites, and a couple dozen with >100. That is "significant impact on the discipline". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as the last two times. Which were, in both cases, that this is a bad nomination that falsely claims that the subject does not pass NPROF when it is clear that they do pass criterion C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to overturn the consensus of the last go-around. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Article's a bit of a mess, but deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, who is going to drive the snowplough and close this quickly? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. Put the time into improving page, instead of rerunning endless AfDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Ayers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass NPROF, and the sources are a paper he authored himself, his own website, and an NIH biosketch (that you have to write up and submit when you apply for funding).

Scopus gives him an h-index of 16, because some people seem to think that's relevant. Natureium (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article leaves much to be desired, but according to Google Scholar[7] he has 2126 citations (and an h-index of 29), which is fairly respectable. --Tataral (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus gives him an h-index of 16 and 1196 citations, which per the NPROF guidelines is more reliable than google scholar for h-index. ("GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources.") Natureium (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Scopus and Google Scholar have their flaws, so the figures should only be taken as rough indications. Google Scholar may be somewhat non-selective, but Scopus is very incomplete. --Tataral (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful if whoever said that his research was featured in all those high-profile media sources would provide actual links to them, but a news search finds several items in that vein: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] (leaving out those that had autoplaying video). XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His citation counts (three pubs with over 100 each in his Google scholar profile) gives him a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1. If that were all I might only give this a weak keep. But the media search above by XOR, even after filtering out half of the results as being low-quality press-release reprinters, gives enough media attention giving in-depth coverage to his research to give a good case for #C7 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's a narrow pass of WP:PROF#C1 and a respectable case for WP:PROF#C7. The topics he has chosen to research are natural fodder for churnalism and clickbait (my list above really only winnowed the worst of a standard "news" search), but a decent fraction of what I turned up was acceptably in-depth. I think it's at the point where we should say something about him, and we can do the reading public a service by writing something that's better than what the churnalism serves up. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia Orthodox Church[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reliable sources about the notability of this church. Google news search returns zero hits[19]. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--they have a good reason not to publish too much about themselves, as Eastern Orthodox is not a legally recognized or protected religion in Indonesia. See also: Indonesia: Christian Family Expelled from Muslim Village Solely Because of Their Faith. Searching on Google for "Indonesia Orthodox Church", most of what you get are comments from other churches where Eastern Orthodoxy is legal seeking to aid, promote, or fund the Indonesia Orthodox Church, such as More Orthodox Baptisms in Indonesia. Whether these really "count" as independent or not depends on whether you consider the other churches to be independent or not given that they are also Eastern Orthodox. If you interpret this broadly enough, human should be deleted until a non-human third party can be found to author it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That is not evidence of absence of sources. A Google news search for ""Gereja Ortodoks Indonesia"" returns 4 hits, already a good result, and this is far from the only possibility (Dr G. doesn't know everything). The IOC is part of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Sydney, Australia and New Zealand (ROCOR), and a search on its website returns multiple news items also. The Christian Persecution website has a recent news item on church security, given the attacks in Sri Lanka, discussing the IOC. Pravoslavie has a detailed article all about the IOC's funding. There are clearly plenty of other sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[More-or-less a] Weak Keep As the two people founded in its native language and translated name from couple to few sources, so there a good reason to stay, but it also need more sources in English, Russian, Slavic, or Greek (Eastern Orthodox-related articles) to keep up-to-date before this happens again. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. However, there is no requirement on Wikipedia for sources to be in English. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is an entire church denomination apparently, with numerous individual churches. We keep such. One reason being that it may allow for individual churches to be covered in a list in the main denomination article, instead of having separate ones, like we keep school district articles but pare away separate elementary schools.

Or if it is not technically a distinct religion, then it is the entire (and surprisingly substantial) presence of the Russian Orthodox Church denomination in Indonesia. Which is appropriately split out from the main ROC article. --Doncram (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning strongly towards keep if the claim that the sources which this article cites are not notable can't be substantiated.Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is in effect a denomination, albeit a small one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec Alpha - Sigma Alpha Epsilon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual chapters of Greek Letter Organizations generally don't meet the Notability criteria and this one doesn't seem like an exception. Naraht (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG which states, "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable" - the Sigma Alpha Epsilon article does not include individual chapters, so no Merge possible - the McGill branch is listed in the List of Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapters - the McGill chapter not notable enough on its own for a stand-alone article, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Longevity myths. Tone 19:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moloko Temo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Time for another AfD, the first nomination was a sock and was properly closed on those grounds. The sources in the article are almost all obituaries, several of which uncritically parrot this clearly farcical longevity myth, and the remaining ones are patently unreliable blogs. Maybe a short mention at Longevity myths could work, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Longevity myths, per usual practice (too old to be listed in Longevity claims). Perhaps merge a few lines there, because her tale did get some coverage. — JFG ^talk 18:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Longevity Myths per the nominator. Not enough for a full article, but could warrant a brief mention. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. bd2412 T 22:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Norris (Louisiana politician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Not notalbe local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unsurprisingly for someone who was the mayor of a town for 40 years and is Louisiana's longest serving mayor, this guy has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including those cited on the page. See here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Meets WP:BASIC. Nb., WP:BASIC has no geographic scope/audience requirements, but even if it did one of the references is a USA Today reference, another appears to be state-wide media, whilst another is a published book. The 6th reference is a public relations journal to which I don't have access and can only see the snippet, but it appears it might be significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for some classes of topic we do require considerably more than just exclusively local hometown coverage, and don't just keep everything that happens to surpass an arbitrary number of footnotes. Mayors are an example of this: every mayor of everywhere will always receive at least local press coverage, so every mayor of everywhere would always pass GNG, and thus be exempted from actually having to pass NPOL, if all they had to do was show a handful of local press coverage in their own media market. So precisely because of the mismatch between "every mayor of everywhere can always show some local sourcing" and "every mayor of everywhere is not always automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article", getting a mayor over the bar does require considerably more than just showing that some sources exist: major cities, nationalizing press coverage, and on and so forth.

Of those sources you offered, there's no actual USA Today source at all. There is one reference to a local newspaper which is part of the USA Today network, but that does not make USA Today the originator of the content for the purposes of the "nationalizing coverage" test — the originator of the content is Monroe's The News-Star, not USA Today. Several of the other sources you've offered (e.g. "Documentary Editing") are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not sources that support his notability. The book that actually contains substantive content about Norris is from a print-on-demand house that allows practically any political or civic entity in the United States to self-publish its own local history book, "sponsored by city mayors, county officials, trade associations, chambers of commerce, libraries, educational and healthcare institutions, with the participation of local businesses and institutions which purchase profile pages in these books to prominently feature and/or advertise their organizations" — so it falls considerably short of meeting reliable source standards, because its publisher applies no independent editorial or notability standards of its own beyond "we've been paid to print this". And on and so forth.

Again, a mayor does have to show considerably more than just "some sources exist", because again, no mayor in the history of human politics ever couldn't show that some sources have existed. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per FOARP above. 40 years as mayor might not be an official NPol count, but even if FOARP hadn't produced enough above to satisfy the GNG this should be fairly obvious that he's picked up enough media in that time. WP:BEFORE? Neonchameleon (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The articles are about him retiring, running for office, or his getting hospitalized. All WP:routine, all local. A book mention of his donating something....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aw come on. The articles also cover the thing that makes him highly notable: being mayor for 40 years, Louisiana's longest serving, a member of La's political hall of fame. No, simply defining everything that makes him notable as "routine" (they aren't: 40 years as a mayor does not fall under any of the headings in WP:ROUTINE) won't cover the massive hole in your delete rationale. This is without even discussing at all the fact that he was an economics professor. FOARP (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep being mayor for 40 years may be a historical feat in and of itself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, defaulting to a weak keep. I'm torn on this one. It's a Billy Hathorn article, meaning every source in existence is on the page, and we don't typically keep mayors of cities this size. But he does have an amount of longevity, and there are articles like the Nola.com article which appear to get him over WP:GNG. That being said, I have WP:BLP1E issues with parts of the article, especially the overly detailed personal life section. SportingFlyer T·C 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The problem is the lack of adequate sourcing to establish general notability, not that he couldn’t have been a notable politician. Trillfendi (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I explained above, there are actual reasons why a smalltown mayor does have to show that his coverage has expanded beyond the local media, where coverage of local mayors is simply expected to exist, before he's actually notable enough for a Wikipedia article — but the sources offered as evidence of nationalizing coverage here aren't really any such thing. His local newspaper being "part of the USA Today network" does not mean that the coverage was produced by or published in USA Today, for example — that designation just means that some USA Today content about national news stories gets reprinted in The News-Star in lieu of The News-Star actually having its own national reporters, not that any of The News-Star's local-interest journalism travels the other way. The book is a self-published one published by a print-on-demand house, meaning all its author had to do to get it published was come up with enough sponsors to pay the cost of getting it printed, not that anybody at HPN Books editorially deemed Norris to be of nationalized interest. Some of the other sources are glancing namechecks of Norris' existence in coverage of other things, not coverage that is substantively about Norris for the purposes of establishing his notability. Take all of that out, and all that's left is the exact same volume of purely localized coverage that every mayor of everywhere can always show, thus not constituting strong evidence that Norris is special. And no, the longevity of a person's mayoral term is not a notability freebie in and of itself either: whether he was mayor for 40 years or just 40 days, the notability test he would actually have to pass is still the same either way. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I wouldn't mind seeing this article recreated with more substantiative sourcing but right now its a WP:TNT situation at best. GPL93 (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seeing as StaticVapor's pertinent arguments have been uncontested (regarding Moab12's delete !vote, I am not certain we can categorically assume that if a page does not exist a child topic is not notable). If folks want to move this to Game Changer Wrestling or make that page, they can do so at editorial discretion and discussion on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GCW Bloodsport[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable pro wrestling event, doesn't meet the criteria. The article has only two sources with the results, don't stablish notability HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Additional sources have been added to establish and improve notability. This is a yearly annual event with a unique rule set that does not take place in any other pro wrestling company. It should not be considered for deletion because of this. This event has a large following, and being able to have a page showing the history of this event and past results is extremely beneficial. Ty.54 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All sources I can find appear to be WP:ROUTINE - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The events have been covered in reliable sources. This includes [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27]. Meets WP: GNG. StaticVapor message me! 23:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article up for deletion? How is this page any different than other pages covering indy annual events such as ROH Tag Wars Tournament, Jim Crockett Cup, Battle of Los Angeles, and King of Trios. These pages are all acceptable.. so why wouldn't this one be?2601:248:600:7D0C:9893:7673:A8B1:3CFC (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't even have an article on Game Changer Wrestling, so I am not convinced any event they run is notable. Moab12 (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 2 events that have taken place so far, there are a total of 19 different individuals that have their own articles. These involved performers consist of current WWE NXT UK Champion WALTER, top WWE NXT talent Matt Riddle and Danny Burch, Impact Wrestling talent in Killer Kross and Braxton Sutter, ROH talent in Jonathan Gresham and Masada, along with former NJPW champion Minoru Suzuki and current MLW champion Tom Lawlor. Not to mention THREE former UFC Heavyweight champions in Josh Barnett, Dan Severn, and Frank Mir, and past Strikeforce middleweight contender Phil Baroni. How can you even make the argument that this event was not "notable" with this type of star power on the event? Ty.54 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not WP:INHERITED. Anyone can book these guys who are willing to pay their booking fee. There must be sources to support the event itself, not the people who appeared in it. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion would mean that every house show run by WWE or other major promotions are notable, since they all have that type of "star power" on the events.

My point remains that at present there is not even any indication the promotion itself is notable, which in my mind would be essential before attempting to demonstrate any individual events they promote are notable. Moab12 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While in general that is the case, but that might not always be. For example, All In was not promoted by any promotion, so by default under that definition it could not be notable. Or Chris Candido Memorial Show is a notable event, it has enough independent coverage, however there is no USA Xtreme Wrestling page. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Moab12; the WWE house shows are not notable because they are routine, as are their weekly broadcasts. However their annual events and PPV's (e.g. SummerSlam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble) are considered notable. BloodSport, which is both an annual show and a PPV should be treated the same (I use the term PPV as a broadcast that you must pay for). Also, as mentioned by StaticVapor, there are more than several sources to support the event itself. And finally, your point that GCW itself does not have a page making Bloodsport not notable is incorrect citing the examples given by User:Galatz. Ty.54 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moab12: See WP:N. Just because the promotion does not have an article (hardly anyone edits Wikipedida in a positive way anymore, so no one to create the article), does not mean the promotion is not notable. It is always good to do a WP:BEFORE, before nominating or commentating on an AfD. I notice a severe lacking of that in this discussion. As I detailed in my original post, non-routine coverage exists in reliable third party sources. StaticVapor message me! 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the above comments. 2601:248:600:7D0C:31B9:F2DB:CFE9:66D5 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been stated above the article discusses an event that is in a similar vein as other indie super shows and has featured many notable performers. If the event continues to be held it will no doubt grow in notability, if it ceases in the future then perhaps we can revisit this discussion. For now I see no reason to remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walden12345 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to me, that this subject has been covered enough in reliable sources to meet notability requirements. 2600:6C50:727F:F69B:65D7:F004:51E0:8910 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd recommend merging with Game Changer Wrestling if that was an option but it's not. I'll side with weak keep I guess.LM2000 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Game Changer Wrestling and retain as a subsection. bd2412 T 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rowlene[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A number of the sources are unreliable, just download links, no chartings, the rest seem to be passing mentions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW as there is clearly no consensus to delete this. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from the obvious - the fact that this baby is 0 days/weeks old and can claim no notability independent from that of his parents - it has been made quite clear that the child will not grow up in the spotlight, let alone sit on a throne. He is not a prince nor a Royal Highness, and the parents clearly intend to protect the child's privacy. The child's relationship with the media (and thus to sources from which we draw our content) has been made clear by the decision to have no hospital steps photocall and dozens of cameras around him. Any coverage comes from the coverage of Harry and Meghan and will remain so for many years to come.

Let's give this child as much freedom-from-Wikipedia as we give to the Queen's other untitled great-grandchildren. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This child is not untitled. He's a male-line great grandson of the Queen, and a grandson to the future King of the UK, which makes his position totally different from Peter Phillips or Zara Tindall's children. By the way, the birth of Peter and Zara's children was not covered in the news on a worldwide scale, while this child has already been mentioned by various sources. Keivan.f^Talk 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He will be Lord Name Windsor, not a prince. Being a male-line great-grandson of the Queen does not make him a prince, and being a "grandson to the future king" is simply reaching. Under absolute primogeniture, male line counts only for titles, and not even that in this case. And it is simply not true that the births of the Phillips children were not covered by the worldwide press. The birth of Elizabeth's first great-grandchild was certainly a big thing. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He will most likely not be Lord Name Windsor, as that is a title reserved for younger sons of high ranking peers. He is the eldest son of a duke, and therefore will likely carry a subsidiary title of his father (older sons of Dukes are usually granted the courtesy of a marquess or an earl). His father is also Earl of Dumbarton so, if the royal family is keeping with the customs that they almost always do, this baby will be Earl Dumbarton. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holding the title of earl (or in his case not even actually holding the title, but just using it as a courtesy title) or the title of count in other countries doesn't confer notability. We don't have articles on every French count either. --Tataral (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that he's a prince at the moment, did I? His situation is similar to that of Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, and just like them he'll be a grandchild to a future king. By the way, the birth of Savannah Phillips did not cause a worldwide baby shower that raised thousands of dollars for charities, while the birth of this child did. There are countless other reasons as well, and a few of them have been mentioned below (his African-American ancestry, etc). Keivan.f^Talk 16:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lesson for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex: don't be charitable if you want your child's right to privacy to be respected. Surtsicna (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The child will be Prince when his grandfather is crowned king. He will be styled as the Earl of Dumbarton unless the queen decides he should become HRH Prince... now, but it seems unlikely. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - while I totally understand the privacy argument (a problem to be taken up with the media in general), this baby is really encyclopedically notable. In addition to being the grandson of the future King of 17 countries, this baby is the first and only g-grandchild of the Queen (or any British sovereign monarch) to have African-American descent - it's a big deal worldwide. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per WP:RAPID - we have wide international coverage of the birth and at this point it is too soon to tell whether it will be sustained. Furthermore, looking at this analytically, this individual is likely to be the grandson of the king and subsequently nephew, and cousin at worst (assuming no unfortunate events along the way) - this is indeed a somewhat different situation that other great-grandchildren of the Queen who are not so close to the current line of succession. It seems highly likely that the British (and international) press will continue to cover this individual in the future. Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is wide international coverage of the birth because it affects two notable parents. Between the baptism and the first day of school there will be nothing to cover. And after the first day of school there will be nothing to report on until the first day of middle school, and so on. There is an obvious intent to shield him from the media. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, seriously? This has happened for every one of the last three royal babies, and the result of each was keep. As this one will be. Why are you wasting your time nominating it for deletion when it so clearly crosses the notability threshold? It's literally top of news headlines world wide , it'll be on the front of every newspaper tomorrow, and covered by the press for decades to come. 81.154.72.155 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is that of the parents. The child deserves privacy, much like Malia and Sasha Obama got theirs. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Are Malia and Sasha Obama in line to become President of the United States? They are not. Members of the royal family are notable because of their lineage. That's not the case for Obama's children. Keivan.f^Talk 16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being in the line should not be considered grounds for having a Wikipedia biography. Lots of people are in the line, and it is clear that Malia and Sasha have at least as much chance of becoming presidents as this baby has of becoming a king. Surtsicna (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not understand why you are describing the child as a member of the royal family minutes after removing him from Template:British Royal Family. Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This child is in line to the throne, but aside from that fact his birth was announced by the palace, and his parents will be having a photo call showing him to the world. Perhaps, if they wanted him to remain a private citizen, they should have let him live a normal life away from the press, as Peter and Zara did. As for your second comment, I think you should check the article. I haven't described him as a member of the family who holds the HRH style, but he's still a great grandson of the Queen. Keivan.f^Talk 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The newborn child will likely take on the subsidiary title, Earl of Dumbarton, carried by his father Prince Harry. The newborn should not be treated any different than the children of royal family members who are further down the line whose own child/children is/are carrying subsidiary titles, such as Viscount Severn who is the son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. With today's royal birth, Prince Edward is now 11th in line and his children fall behind him. →Lwalt^♦ talk 16:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just born, but this is still royalty and therefore almost certainly notable. SemiHypercube 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- He is not royalty, and his parents do not want him to be in the spotlight. Surtsicna (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And so are not Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, as a lot of users mentioned earlier. Keivan.f^Talk 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The wishes of their parents should have been honored too. Louise and James perform no duties and are hardly ever seen in public. Surtsicna (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the Earl and Countess of Wessex walk out of hospital showing their children to the press? And now Meghan and Harry will also be posing for the cameras in a few days. I don't consider that privacy. By the way, this child's every step will be followed by the media. From his education to his career and other stuff. Even if they claim that they want privacy, it simply won't happen. Keivan.f^Talk 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to save information but merge to name and title once they are released in a few days. I believe during the press conference The Duke of Sussex announced the family would make a public appearance in two days. By that time I'm sure the name will be announced. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this child is already more in the public eye than a lot of his other cousins who lack royal titles, not to mention that he is the first member of the royal family by birth to be of significant African heritage (Black British), and I believe that in itself is quite notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Given the numerous other people who have pages on Wiki who are infinitely less notable than this child, this is an obvious keep, in my humble opinion. This child will command attention and notoriety for their entire lives, due to their status/parents, regardless if they are a "HRH" or otherwise (which they are not, but still).LancasterII (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Give me a break. The most talked about baby of the year, seventh in line to the throne, a great-grandchild of the queen and grandchild of the future king, the first American-born and first birracial UK royal, etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The baby has been in the news for months now. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No brainer keep. This discussion is a joke. EuroAgurbash (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Please stop tilting at windmills; the child is obviously notable. We're not going to do anything stupid like post their NHS card number, and we have standards to make sure this isn't a privacy-violating mess. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The 7th in line and the nephew (and also cousin) of the future King. Copy EuroAgurbash. --Foghe (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep very notable. --rogerd (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It may be a stub right now, but it will soon be expanded very rapidly as more information is revealed.INeedSupport ^:3 18:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I sympathize with the nominator's rational, as it seems this article was started a tad too soon, but the subject does pass the notability guidelines for royalty personal. Given how much coverage the royal family of England regularly receives, it is a given that this article will grow. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. We may make exceptions for heirs to thrones and people who hold certain titles in their own right, but not for someone who is merely 7th in line now (and maybe 30th or 40th or so in a few decades), with no likelihood of succeeding, whose sole claim to fame is one great-grandparent who happens to be royal and who doesn't even hold a royal title (according to the article this child will only hold the minor title of lord which doesn't confer automatic notability and is the equal of "the children of any other duke"). I'm quite sure that similar articles on minor royal relatives without royal titles from other countries like Monaco or Sweden or even Spain and who haven't actually done anything yet would get deleted. We already have far too much nobility/royalty cruft on otherwise non-notable people. By comparison to the US (arguably a more important country than the UK), would we immediately give the great-grandchild of Donald Trump an article on their birth? Or all children of British dukes? --Tataral (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Why delay the inevitable? This person will eventually have an article written about them. 003FX (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is actually the second time this has been nominated for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete William the Conqueror has many millions of 20th-something great grandchildren. There is nothing special about this one. Uhooep (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The boy is not quite royalty but he is clearly notable as his birth, though not so important as those of his cousins, has still generated much mention in the newspapers. We also expect him to become a prince of the realm upon Charles's accession. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bait-Ul-Ilm School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL as there is no significant coverage of it in reliable multiple sources. The previous AfD used the "all high schools are notable" which is not the case since 2017 now per the RFC at [28]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The government references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you manage to access archive versions of those sources, Eastmain? The links are currently dead. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a private business lacking significant coverage in independent sources. The school's website isn't active, so it may well have closed down, but due to the lack of coverage it's hard to know. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on the above, the five sources cited in the current version of the article are two pages on the school's own website (not functioning), some sort of directory site, and two pages on the website of the Revenue Division of the Government of Pakistan, which presumably contained financial details about the school, but which are dead links. A search for further sources hasn't revealed anything reliable. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable school - the article was created by the school itself, so WP:COI - the government listings only show that the school exists and merely existing is not enough to establish notability - does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:NGO, which states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." - Epinoia (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bitdefender. Clear consensus against keeping this, but more or less a toss-up between delete, merge, and redirect. Redirect seems like a reasonable middle ground. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Softwin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Softwin doesn't seem as notable as Bitdefender. Suggest merging and deletion of the article. Also, article has no references. The article was previously WP:PROD ed in 2008 but the tag was removed. However, not much work has been done on the article in terms of proving its notability. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bitdefender. Redirects are cheap, there is not much content anyway and this looks like a plausible search term (mentioned in the target article). Pavlor (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Bitdefender, Article cites no sources, and a search on Google turns up no coverage. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 13:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would not say "no coverage", see Google News, including BBC. Softwin and Bitdefender are now separate companies. Softwin is managed by Măriuca Talpeș[29], while BitDefender is managed by Florin Talpeș. Softwin's business is based on educational software (Intuitext) and customer service consulting (Paxato). Ascenta (IT business consulting) was also part of the Softwin group, but it is now sold to Computas. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Peoples[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed candidate for office. Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful mayoral candidates, but this features neither strong evidence that she had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy nor strong enough sourcing to deem her candidacy a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anticulture Records[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can only find very trivial or passing mentions for this organization. NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NCORP. Sources are passing mentions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT. No notable releases on the label – there area several bluelinked artists listed, but really only ArnoCorps, Malefice and Gutworm look like they pass notability themselves, and the first two acts only released one album each on this record label. Richard3120 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clearly delete. I am not closing as soft delete because the article should not be restored in its current condition, but if good sources are found I will be happy to restore to user or draft space. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Action Records (England)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The bands it releases and those that perform there are likely notable. However notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the store/label itself lacks multiple independent RS to establish notability under WP:NCORP. A search does not find it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of trivial or SPS sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG is not met, as all claims of notability are based upon passing mentions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aside from the record label, some record shops are notable if they have a national reputation and associated press coverage (Category:Music retailers of the United Kingdom). At the moment I only see local press[30][31] and directory listings though I've not checked newspaper archives or music press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is one of the best-known independent record stores in the UK, and has been in business since 1981. Like the rest of the record shops selling physical product, its heyday was in the 1980s and 1990s, which means if there are any sources out there, they are almost certainly going to be in newspaper archives – recent online sources are going to be thin on the ground. Richard3120 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a source search per Richard3120. Not opposed to deletion or relisting if that comes up empty. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 23:30, 07 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm open to changing my mind if references can be found. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems like we don't have evidence of WP:N being met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClassifEYE[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ClassifEye

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a non-notable brand/product/technology. References are either non-independent or are niche publications or just mention ClassifEYE is passing. Maybe there is some value in a general article about the technology used in Poultry processing, but this particular branded technology doesn't meet notability guidelines for its own article. This page was previously deleted recently per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassifEye. Peacock (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPRODUCT, may be promotional. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also salt it since it seems it has been deleted with similar contents in the past. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIAL NOTE: The comment about "recently deleted" shows that someone is not reading the articles with an eye for not losing stuff - the "alas" comment I saw somewhere on Wiki. Both products are about artificially "seeing" - that's what they have in common. The deleted article was about "Contactless fingerprinting technology" - to help prevent loss of life in airport situations, and a USA .gov site wrote

in 30 pages what I had summarized as

Although it ranks facial recognition and iris recognition ahead of contactless fingerprint identification, it is the fingerprint that ranks highest of the three for high-security situations.

The ClassifEYE is about feeding people - I even added re how it helps produce Hallal chicken at lower cost (I keep kosher, and I know about prices for special processing).

also please note the article's (sourced) "By 2013, ClassifEYE was already listed as Prior art

ClassifEYE (subject of this nomination) is not the "recently deleted" ClassifEye .. (different technologies, by different companies, in different countries) Pi314m (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regarding the poultry inspection product (from Baader Linco) that is the subject of the present article, I don't see its mention in the Korean patent text as conferring notability, nor does the trademark listing, or a brief mention of the equipment being installed in a new plant. Searches on the product name (and also variously using Baader and Linco) are not identifying sources meeting WP:PRODUCTREV. Overall, I don't see WP:GNG notability being demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While there was some suggestion that notability might be shown by other sources given the length of time that the subject has operated, but none materialized. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alwayz Recording[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks independent coverage in multiple RS required to meet WP:NCORP. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete found this [[32]] which is not enough to establish notability, but indicate it might be. But as it is all I have managed to find I am going for delete right now, its just not enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that helps as all it says about the subject is "Long-running UK label Alwayz Recording are going big with their new mixtape Concrete Jungle" before going on to list its NOTINHERITED artists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I say it is not enough, they are a long running (thus not some flash in the pan indy label) label. Thus it may be there could be stuff out there, I am just not finding it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP. Appears to rely on inherited notability. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfinished article about little-known label. That being said, I might change my vote if somebody improves the article. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Page lacks notability. No content that helps establish notability of the subject. No notable citations to verify.Sora Sailor (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People unanimously agree that this should be deleted, so somebody should probably delete the page soon. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afd's normally run for one week, which concludes two days from now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this label has had a few chart hits... "Chip Diddy Chip" by Chip reached number 21 on the UK Singles Chart. But there isn't a lot of coverage about the label itself. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal due to concerns being fixed within the article itself. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Remembers Woody[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourced claim of notability within article, thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM since it's only claim of notability is derivative of its artist (Pete Seeger). WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the notability comes with the two principals, who were friends and performed together. A Pete Seeger album remembering Woody Guthrie carries a historical connection, and should be kept. If it needs cites or more cites, then that tag is appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give any objective reasons why it should be kept. Please cite notability guidelines. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Another Believer, and per WP:COMMON, WP:IGNOREALLRULES (although that isn't relly needed in this case because the album is obviously notable and a good addition to Wikipedia's Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie collections)), and per historical long-term consideration. Pete honors Woody. Can't get much better than that. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer: article creator). Album by notable artist has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. Stub needs to be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Kazikazi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most significant accomplishment here is runner up in a beauty pagent but afaict, there's no actual in depth coverage of her. Praxidicae (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Won only local (not main national) events. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per snow. As with the other film that was up for AfD and the below arguments, this film has yet to start filming, has very little coverage, and as such, fails notability guidelines. I'm closing this early, as there's no chance of this outcome being different if this was open for the full week. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possession (Film 2019)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way too soon, its not even been cast. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Sheldybett (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO. Obviously part of the Elissaarko17 / Elissagreer1217 effort to get Solstice Studios people and products into the encyclopedia. I'll just ask: Elissaarko17, do you have any undisclosed connection to Solstice Studios? Bakazaka (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Elissaarko17 disclosed employment at Solstice Studios on their talk page, so I have added COI/connected contributor templates to the article. Bakazaka (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, leaning towards consensus to keep, after extended time for discussion. However, the article may benefit from retitling to List of lost lands, Lost continent, or List of lost continents. bd2412 T 22:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost lands[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Odd mish-mash of real, mythological and fictional sunken lands. Although it could be split into at least two articles that clearly distinguish between history and myth, this would be redundant as most of the content is already covered in other articles. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main problem with the article is lack of refs. Yes it needs tidying a bit but providing sources are added and the distinction between real and mythological is maintained, it’s fine. Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as has already been said, it needs sources but I'm sure those can be found and that's not a reason to delete it. It's clearly a notable subject, I've got at least 3 books covering it and I think I have this. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the subject? Do the books cover both mythological places such as Atlantis and real, non-legendary ones like Doggerland? –dlthewave ☎ 11:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doug Weller and CAPTAIN RAJU. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There's not a discernable reason to delete in the nomination. See the Encyclopedia of Fantasy for a model example. Andrew D. (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to be. Is this a "list of lost lands?" Anyways, the problem with notability here is the definition - what exactly is a "lost land?" There is at least some geographic support for part of the definition mentioned in the article [33] but my WP:BEFORE search gets lost in a swamp of music festivals and board games, and the definition also appears to extend at least colloquially to lands that were ruled by a power and no longer are. There are some huge potential WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:TRIVIA/general WP:GNG issues with this article, hence my delete !vote, but obviously no issue if someone tries to clean it up and demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer's reasons. The lead lacks references that define the title and scope of the article. --mikeu ^talk 13:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify The page requires more work. It can be re-written and republished. Laosilika (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As discernible when following the copious ((main)) links at the section headings, this material is already well bundled in units that make sense. There is no need for an additional forced mash-up of Beringia and Shangri-La under one fuzzy term. In fact, replacing the article with a disambiguation pointing at Mythical continents, Submerged continent, & c. might not be a bad solution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify This is a synthesized/OR mish-mash of not just real and imaginary places but a list of unrelated authors that apparently talked about them in one way or another. This is not a coherent enough article with narrow inclusion criteria for a single encyclopedic topic. Agree with Elmidae that a dab to the main articles could work but the lists needn't be combined. Reywas92^Talk 04:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Lost continents" would be a valid article subject referring to the mythical likes of Mu, Lemuria, Atlantis, and other examples from non-Western culture. Meanwhile, List of mythological places could maybe be divided into subcategories (continent, country, city, etc). But this is just too vague and doesn't include much that's worth saving. I certainly wouldn't object to a redirect if people think of a sensible target (maybe List of mythological places - a lot of things like mythical continents and lost continents exist only as redirects, so redirecting to them would not be appropriate). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep rationale for deletion... What is the reason to delete in the nomination? Seems the nominator does not like the fusion of myth and reality in the article? The subject matter is notable. WP:ATD. Needs sourcing Lubbad85 (☎) 22:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the fusion of myth and reality is not supported by sources. I didn't explain it very well in the nomination but I agree with SportingFlyer, mikeu and Reywas92. Although various items in the list might be referred to as "lost lands", we don't seem to have a source that treats all of them as a single topic. The extremely broad definition in the opening paragraph (including planets and cartographic errors?) is entirely unsourced. We write articles about topics, not semi-related things that happen to share the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid list article. Just rename it to List of lost lands, and its fine. Plenty of blue links, aids in navigation as a good list article should. No other target exist for all the valid information. Dream Focus 02:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There's not a discernable reason to delete in the nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a topic that if it were deleted, it will still need to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia as this is a real phenomenon -- not lost lands themselves, but writers who invent and write about lost lands. The article lists many such writers and their inventions, and provides multiple sources that are about those writers, for example:
- L. Sprague de Camp and Willy Ley, Lands Beyond, Rinehart & Co., New York, 1952.
- L. Sprague de Camp, Lost Continents: The Atlantis Theme in History, Science, and Literature, Dover Publications, 1970.
- Raymond H. Ramsay, No Longer on the Map: Discovering Places that Never Were, Ballantine, 1972.

I have seen other sources as well on this topic. Multiple book-length treatments of the topic make it notable. -- GreenC 14:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiq Gillani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very much a CV, lacking clear indication of notability. Some of the sources don't mention his involvement - they just quote a corporate action. Others are mere lists with his name, but without editorial coverage. In yet another set of citations he is quoted with a statement or two about an industry topic. None of the sources are editorial coverage about the person. In short, a corporate officer doing his job and talking about it. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment post nomination comment. Apparently this is a case of undisclosed payment or at minimum COI editing. Major editor are Jetsetting28 and Srg28 who seem to be (near) SPAs with respect to this article. This diff indicates that Srg28 "reviewed" the work of the other editor. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is consensus that this article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Film Encounter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing more than WP:ARTSPAM, non-notable film festival, absolutely no real coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I'm a new editor and created much of the BFE entry. I want to clarify that I am not involved with the organization that puts on BFE and it is not a profit making venture. I moved it to mainspace because I felt it had enough reliable sources to be considered notable, as in the minimum of two independent sources (the peer-reviewed AMIA article and the Baltimore arts paper). The issue of the article seeming like advertising could be corrected. I would appreciate you pointing out the phrases which seem overly promotional to you so I could fix those. I would also request that, if others disagree about the article's validity as a Wiki entry at this time, it be moved back into a sandbox/draft to allow more time to find sources. Thank you. -- CuriousDaily (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This festival is very well-known and highly regarded in the moving image (film and video) archives field, attended by a cross-section of eminent archivists and many members of the public. It's a provocative incubator of ideas and discussions, as can be seen from the references. It bears the same relationship to the archives world as Sundance and Telluride did to the film world in their earliest years, and it is very likely to continue and expand its reach. I understand Praxidicae's concern about artspam but disagree; as a film professor I've fielded many questions about this festival and the sorts of films it shows and am quite happy to see an article emerge. Rickprelinger (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so well known, you should have no problem providing independent, in depth coverage. I couldn't find any. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick scan of References looks like they are there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MensanDeltiologist (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which would those be because all I see are hyper local references, primary, listings, a handful of interviews but nothing that is independent, reliable and in depth. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that at least one of the sources can be considered independent, reliable and in depth - [34] Hzh (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Moving Image journal article and BMore Art articles suggest notability per GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. They've been running for several years and attracted a crowd, though I'm not sure how big. Data on attendance and a few more "strong" citations would be appreciated, and I think we can give the creators time to generate them. In the meanwhile - keep. François Robere (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. I agree with Praxidicae that most of the references don't satisfy WP:NORG, mostly because they're local, and thus fail WP:AUD. "Review of Bastard Film Encounter 2015". The Moving Image: The Journal of the Association of Moving Image Archivists looks like a solid source, but one solid source is not enough. See WP:THREE. If you can point out some better sources, I might change my mind. Suggest this be relisted for a week to allow time to examine the sources better. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After mulling it over, I'm leaning towards keep. There are at least a couple of sources that can pass GNG criteria (WP:THREE is also a personal essay, not guideline), there seem to be sources not online - an article listed here [35], and radio broadcast [36], Just passing GNG I think. Hzh (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. This seems well-supported enough to pass the bar of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 01:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rashed Rahman (actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like WP:TOOSOON to me. One role, no article about the film or its director either. Edwardx (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some trivial mentions in relation to one film by his dad.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: the film is not by his dad, the lead is just poorly written - the film is by Satyajit Das, his father is Habibar Rahman - Epinoia (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one role in a non-notable film does not meet WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - Epinoia (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Newport City Council election[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. There is time enough for an article on these local elections when reliable, independent sources start spending serious attention on them. The source in the article doesn't even mention Newport, and reading that page gives me the impression that things are still in flux anyway. Even if fixed, the time to create these articles is when they become notable events as evidenced by news articles, not earlier. Fram (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with no issues of it being re-created nearer the time, with some decent sourcing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON and we do not know if an election will definitely take place in 2022. Ajf773 (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue is not in flux, the Welsh Government have confirmed the Council term will be 5 years and this is notable. A number of Council elections pages are poor quality or not yet created on Wikipedia, particularly in Wales, so deleting articles will only hurt coverage further. (Llemiles (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep due to this being the wrong venue. The page is a redirect, and should be sent to WP:Redirects for Discussion. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US and Canadian license plates[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect is broad to the point of uselessness. There are pages for every jurisdiction's license plate on Wikipedia anyway, you should either link to the specific license plate page or the topic license plate page. The subsection targeted by the redirect is also long gone. I've gone through and fixed up redirects on all pages that used to point here, there are only talk pages left. Lordgilman (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close. Wrong forum. Redirects are discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. not here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A redirect can be created manually. Merging with itself makes no sense. Sandstein 08:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We do not ordinarily make separate articles for institutes within universities, unless they are truly world-famous. This one is not. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda where the topic is discussed. I'm unable to find enough significant independent sources to warrant a separate article. Peacock (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology. — Stevey7788 (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nubian Message[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an African-American topics student newspaper at North Carolina State University. The only significant coverage of it I can find are in its own articles or those of The Technician, NCSU's mainstream student newspaper, which fails source independence. Aside from some sporadic citations to its articles and a single mention in an article about the NCSU NAACP chapter in The Crisis, there is no mention of it elsewhere. Thus it fails to meet WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no notability guideline for specifically for newspapers, so all we have is WP:GNG and WP:NRV, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" - this paper could be notable if it is the first or only African-American student newspaper - the article certainly needs to be re-written to remove sensational editorial languge like, "students...remember vividly" and "The response...was nothing less remarkable." - but without "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" it qualifies for Delete - Epinoia (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Mathew[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional entirely; not really notable, because all of the referneces are PR, Made by a spa, so presumably there's coi. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. François Robere (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks any sort of reliable sourcing that would indicate passing of GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Castleberry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to establish notability of individual SecretName101 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources lean towards a negative WP:BLP1E (for lifting fake weights). Non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From a football perspective, I find nothing to show that he would pass either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Moreover, my searches of Newspapers.com didn't turn up significant coverage of the type required by WP:GNG. I am not familiar with the consensus on bodybuilder notability (and reliable sources in that field), so if someone makes a reasoned argument along those lines, or if others come forward with evidence of significant coverage, I'm open to changing my view. Cbl62 (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not anywhere near enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he meets any SNG and my search found nothing to support a claim of meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Haines[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Not many sources on the article to support his notability. With regrard to WP:PROF however, he has had honors and fellowship appointments, as substantiated in this document on his website, however I couldn't find any independent, secondary sources to verify his notability. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 04:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject born in the year of 1933, pre internet ear, thus digital RS is not easy to be found. Google scholar [37] and Mendeley [38] show many citation of subject's works passes NACADEMIC#4. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found him in my copy of Who's Who in America (2011), and that's enough for me to presume notability (see #Selection process). His CV says he's also in International Who's Who (2005-present), but I can't confirm. Needs cleanup and more sources - such as the awards section not referring to his personal website. -- Netoholic @ 09:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Who's Who" is a vanity scam that is neither usable as a reliable source nor usable as an indicator of notability. None of the other fellowships and awards listed on his cv rise to the level of notability either, and in fact the inclusion of Who's Who on the cv makes me view it as less reliable than usual. Also, I don't understand the call-out to WP:PROF#C4 above; that one is for textbook authors. But he has sufficient citations to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who in America is a respected biographical dictionary and perfectly useful to fulfill WP:ANYBIO#3. You are confusing the respected reference with Who's Who scams which use the name of the respected reference to fool people. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Based on citation record, 5 publications with 100+ citations should be close but above the threshold. Clearly his research had an impact on the field. hroest 19:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Seattle Redhawks men's basketball#Season-by-season records. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seattle Redhawks men's basketball seasons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already a list of Seattle Redhawks men's basketball on the main basketball page Seattle Redhawks men's basketball. Brian (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect You did not have to bring this to AFD at all. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Complete waste of time. Just do it. Smartyllama (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is clear consensus that this topic is notable. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Banks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads largely like a resume ever since its creation in 2008. WP:BEFORE turns up little to nothing. I am concerned that this does not satisfy GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or any other relevant notability guideline. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article. I think the only things that need is reliable citation and more expanding.Forest90 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many reviews of her writing in newspapers of the time, so it is likely that she does meet WP:AUTHOR. I have removed the IMDB and Amazon 'references', and I am adding reviews and articles about her work as references. I can then attempt to edit the text based on the info in the references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Needs better citation, but should be fine with a little attention. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG - needs an ambitious editor. WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOWBALL also apply. gidonb (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Rebecca Green for WP:HEYMANN sourcing added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't going to comment, but here I am. First, a clerical note of sorts: I have, with the help of Cameron11598, fixed the Newspapers.com references so that they are no longer paywalled and clearly state that they are via Newspapers.com. This was done per Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. Cameron11598 assisted with providing the snippet URLs as I do not have access to the website. He has had no involvement with the below analysis (aside from basically allowing me access to review the references as the majority were paywalled). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now my analysis: The majority of her coverage appears to come from The Bastrop Advertiser - a weekly newspaper for Bastrop County - and Austin American-Statesman, which is the major daily newspaper for Austin, TX. As far as I can tell, she does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR criterion #1 ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.") based on sourcing present/below analysis. She does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR criterion #2 ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.") as she has not originated a significant new concept/theory/technique. Nor does she really satisfy criterion #3 as she has not "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", nor has such work "been the primary subject of an independent and notable work." Most of the reviews below are fairly trivial in nature and mostly from repeat publications, therefore bringing the "or" clause of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" at least somewhat into question. Moving onto the General Notability Guideline / WP:BASIC, she has not had significant coverage in "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" about herself. She merely has (mostly) short reviews not really talking about herself. By the numbers, Austin American-Statesman has written about her books 5 times, with one being an interview and all being fairly short; the Chicago Tribune has written about a book of her's for two sentences expressing how much he disliked the book/not covering her; Santa Cruz Sentinel was less harsh than the Chicago Tribune, totaling 7 sentences but never really talking about her or establishing notability; the The Star Tribune liked The Dark Room, giving it 5 short paragraphs (4 plot, 1 praising her); The Los Angeles Times reviewed 2 of her books. They arguably gave the second most substantive coverage, but again never really discussing her and mostly just plot summary; The Indianapolis News covered a book once calling it "suspenseful", mostly plot summary; The South Bend Tribune compared her book to another without any real review, short plot summary, only mentions her in subtitle; The San Francisco Examiner gave 1 review, which is by far the longest of them all.

- Carolyn Banks nor "Idyll" are supported by the first reference.
- [I cannot comment on reference 2 at this time as I do not have access to the second page]
- Ref #3 is just a website link [39]. It should probably be removed.
- Ref #4 does indeed verify that Amber Quill Press republished the books, but is largely an interview with The Bastrop Advertiser. Interviews do not add to notability.
- Ref #5 indeed verifies that she founded a non-notable media arts organization
- Ref #6 is IMDb which, from a notability standpoint doesn't do much and the film itself doesn't appear notable based on the non-paywall searches that I can do
- Ref #7 is a deadlink and Wayback did not have a snapshot that I could find (I went from the last 2010 snapshot through til the last 2011 snapshot, 17 Nov 2011)
- Ref #8 Two sentence review of the novel Mr. Right in the Chicago Tribune in which the reviewer had "little to say" about the book, considering it "lacking"
- Ref #9 is a longer review this time of Mr. Right (in the Austin American-Statesman)
- Ref #10 is a medium-short review in Santa Cruz Sentinel (An aside: critics don't like this book much, do they?)
- Ref #11 is a plot summary/minor (in article content, nothing further) review of The Dark Room in The Star Tribune
- Ref #12 is a review in the The Los Angeles Times of The Girls on the Row, but again says nothing about her
- Ref #13 is a review in The Indianapolis News of Patchwork.
- Ref #14 is a comparison between her book (Patchwork) and another in The South Bend Tribune
- Ref #15 is again a review in the The Los Angeles Times (Patchwork). Appears she is becoming a better author at this point.
- Ref #16 is another review of Patchwork, this time in The Orlando Sentinel
- Ref #17 is a review of Groomed for Death in the Austin American-Statesman.
- Ref #18 is a review of The Turtle's Voice in the Austin American-Statesman. It describes her as a "local writer who has made her mark with a mystery series..."
- Ref #19 is a short review of A Horse to Die For in the Austin American-Statesman.
- Ref #20 is a review of Tart Tales: Elegant Erotic Stories in The San Francisco Examiner. This is by far the most substantive coverage of any review above, but still mentions little about her.
- Ref #21 is mostly an interview with herself and another writer in Austin American-Statesman.
- Hopefully this is of use to some. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviews do not need to say a lot about the author. As far as meeting WP:AUTHOR #3, I don't suppose that you or the person who helped you "fix" the references (not very successfully as they didn't get both pages of Ref #2) bothered to look for more? And how does 9 newspapers reviewing her works, including several major papers, not meet WP:AUTHOR #3? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just added another 10 reviews as references. There are more (as I said in my first comment, there are many). Perhaps TheSandDoctor's friend can also clip these (I am sorry that I am currently unable to). As I also said above, I can attempt to add information and quotes from the reviews to the article. gidonb has done an excellent job of giving more shape to it. I often wish that those who put a lot of effort into arguing for deletion would put that effort into improving articles, instead. Funnily enough, I am also trying to write new articles, not just rescue those that come to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - evidence presented here shows the subject is notable enough to warrant their own article. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on number of reviews meaning that she meets WP:AUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival. Clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article. The merge target can be further discussed on the talk page if desired. T. Canens (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Service Coachella performance[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL - it is presumptuous to assume that a single performance by one artist at a music festival is notable enough to warrant its own article when the performance has not even occurred yet. Furthermore, it is not even known yet what exactly this performance will comprise, since technically it is not a standard billed performance but rather supposedly a religious service for Easter. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as article creator. This performance has already received a lot press attention prior to it taking place. Come back in a week once the event happens and decide wether it merits deletion. Kim Kardashian has also said it's not a religious event. Nice4What (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would look over WP:NOTNEWS - just because something has received news coverage does not mean it has been imbued with lasting notability, especially if the coverage is mostly speculation/wonder at what the event will actually be. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This performance is being live-streamed and numerous sources have covered it, plus West is a highly popular artist so there is obvious notability. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing you have said gives this performance any notability. Most of the festival was livestreamed - are you telling me that any random set from the festival that was included in the YouTube livestream is inherently notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? I think that would be ridiculous. What about other random performances from across the entire weekend that were covered by media outlets - should they have their own articles? What about Kanye West's random performamce at a venue in NYC on a tour? Does that deserve an article simply because he's a notable person? Your threshold for notability is definitely in contrast with Wikipedia's. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edit West debuted a new song live during the performance and even confirmed it's title. The performance is definitely notable now. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Debuting a song does not make a performance notable. If it did, Wikipedia would be littered with stub articles about millions of individual concerts. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and make yourself familiar with the guidelines for notability, because it doesn't sound like you know how to distinguish between newsworthy and notable. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This performance is already covered in the main article for Yandhi. Having a live-stream and sources aren't enough here to qualify for a separate article; by this logic, nearly every Coachella performance this year should have a Wiki page (it's also worth noting that there are no pages for any individual Coachella festivals). See also Y2Kcrazyjoker4's comments on notability. SiliconRed (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Preposterous to think that such a single routine performance or the concept of releasing a new song is notable. West has held countless concerts, and numerous major performers are at music festivals, all of which receive routine coverage, but they are not individually notable. Can be mentioned in the album article. Reywas92^Talk 04:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yandhi#Third recording: Sunday Service, where the subject is already adequately sourced and covered. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a bit more of analysis on whether the news coverage might satisfy GNG and other applicable criteria
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This performance is not notable enough for it’s own article. The best thing to do would be mere mention in Kanye West’s career section. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Should probably be merged or redirected to a page on 2019 Coachella. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coachella. There is no indication that this set was so influential as to pass GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Coachella per WP:CRYSTALBALL. This event will take place than it is currently taking place and as such we should not be having an article about a subject that hasn't influential enough yet to meet WP:N. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the performance has occurred since I opened this deletion request, but it seems clear that it has not passed any notability threshold in the time since. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G4 - TNT ^💖 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Geek Studies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publication, fails WP:N, WP:GNG. Google finds no instances of substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. Largoplazo (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this sounds too much like a jokey journal to have a place in Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were notable, being jokey would be immaterial. The issue is its apparent lack of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could someone check if this is substantially the same as the article which was deleted in 2015? If it is, then speedy deletion criterion G4 would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's identical to the last comma. I've tagged it for G4 (I prefer not to delete it myself, as I was the nom on the previous AfD). I wonder where the current article creator found this, three years after it was deleted... --Randykitty (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G4 is inapplicable here. G4 "applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes ... pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." [italics mine] In case like this, where the deletion rationales were of the nature of "not notable" and WP:TOOSOON, which are judgments on the nature of the subject, at the time, and not on the content, then it's entirely reasonable to consider whether, four years after the previous deletion, those rationales no longer apply, whether the subject has possibly come to meet the notability guidelines since then. Imagine someone submitting Justin Bieber for G4 deletion on the grounds that his mother had created an article about him two years earlier (subsequently deleted at Afd on the grounds of non-notability) the day after he first sang at a school assembly. Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT "sufficiently identical". It's frigin IDENTICAL. Your comparison with Justin Bieber is ridiculous. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an exact recreation of an article already deleted for reasons that still apply. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an identical recreation. Largoplazo might I ask what exactly you assessed this based on? G4 is very clear and I think your interpretation above is very poor. Consensus hasn't changed and the content hasn't either. Praxidicae (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tenzin Dalha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor who seems to fall under too soon. He has so far just one role released. Though he does seem to have a 2nd role coming out this year. But for now he does not seem to be that notable. He might need a article before long though (I was iffy on putting this up given the fact he will be in 2 films, but it might not be notable just yet) I should also add his first film role does not look like he had that notable of a character, who knows about the 2nd. Wgolf (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two supporting roles are not enough. He's just starting and we might very well need an article for him in 2-3 years, but not yet. François Robere (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon and lacks the kinds of roles which would garner notability under NACTOR or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.